Olives @olives@qoto.org

While I generally don't dive into this, I saw a few bad faith remarks which are so outrageous that I feel compelled to respond.

First off, when talking of abuse, can we not conflate fantasy (i.e. non-existent people) with reality? This is not only defamatory (someone was sued over something similar in 2021, as it turns out, if you flat out lie about someone like that, that can lead to legal trouble), it's a recipe for disseminating misleading information, wrong, impinges on fundamental rights (freedom of expression, privacy, due process, and maybe more), and wastes resources / money in the worst possible way.

Those who push this tend to be very bad faith actors. The worst is when someone is scared of a "written story"(1) or a "cartoon"(2). These are fairly common and mundane things. This just shows how extreme someone's position really is.

I think it's time to grow up, adapt to the world, and not cosplay as a Karen from the 90s who'd get offended about everything. It also has nothing to do with crime (3,4).

Then, there're cases where someone thinks that because something involves some novel technology, such as "AI" or "VR", they can pull the wool over everyone's eyes, and advocate for someone to have zero rights.

So, let's talk about this too.

I've commented on VR safety before (5), now my ideas here might not be the best. Still, it's likely better than demanding someone to magically "fix something", to rattle the drum, and to demonize random people incoherently. Not a high bar, huh.

I'm also seeing terms like "VR CSAM". One of the problems with using exploitative language like "CSAM" (the term "CSAM" itself appears to originate from Australia) here is that we literally have no clue what the hell someone is talking about, especially if they talk like that to talk about someone who doesn't exist in the same breath (and we know they do this).

This is a very big problem, among a few bad actors, who appear to do this very deliberately. Is it that someone has found some creative way to get child porn (18 U.S.C. 2251) in, as unlikely as that is? Or is it something fictional, which we've known about, and we know is not that uncommon?

Intuitively, this doesn't seem like it'd be a particularly good medium for this. Someone could project it onto a plane, however, this would be of particularly low quality, in comparison to viewing something on a regular monitor.

Considering every violation of 2251 is a potential risk to someone, what is the motivation for someone to take on this particular risk? Why risk being dragged up on a scary law for something which provides little additional value? For the sake of being evil?

While depicting someone as a cartoon villain might be appealing as a tool to serve a political end (6), cartoon villains tend to be beings which exist within the world of cartoons, not the real world.

Even supposing someone did do that, few would likely do it, and I don't see why someone wouldn't be able to punish them for this specifically. More crucially, a problematic person would be distinct from non-problematic people, just as someone who watches murder flicks is distinct from actual murderers (though, this might not be the best example to use here).

Also, like black markets in relation to drugs (7,8), it doesn't feel like pushing things underground here could possibly do any good.

There are a few other potential points, however, in interest of not repeating myself, I will point out that the points I have already made here are also applicable to them. This likely doesn't apply to just the preceding portion.

Onto the next one, "AI", I initially treated this one (9) in the same fashion as with (2), although I later changed my approach as it was insufficient for dealing with this.

First, I had to address the issue of potential pseudo-photographs *(10), a phenomena which is vanishingly rare (11), and distinct from other communities (11,12), though mentioned examples of pseudo-photographs tend to be anecdotal with a sensationalistic leaning, and tends to conflate possession with distribution.

Among other things, these factors made arguments along these lines pretty moot and inherently disproportionate. Also, whenever the State gets involved, it is usually a recipe for trouble, the State is generally not going to help (13).

* This term is used inconsistently on here.

Also, it's not as if this itself isn't exaggerated.

One concern trolling argument, originating from the early 90s (and occasionally dusted off for dramatic effect, despite it's lack of substance), appeals to the possibility that it might be "inconvenient" for cops. This ignores though that in around thirty years, this has never really been a problem. We also shouldn't be architecting society for the convenience of cops.

It also ignores the police have never had more tech (which they use and expand) than they do now to investigate leads (they're drowning in them), only focusing on "inconvenient" hypotheticals. Even more problematically, it's a "War on Drugs" kind argument (14,15), and they already have tools to deal with it in pertinent cases (no, they don't need an obscenity law to do this, good grief).

Quite a few arguments don't actually make sense, especially when they try to conflate them with things which aren't even close to looking like pseudo-photographs. This makes clear such arguments are not intended to go after that. They're just pretexts for censorship.

There is also a bit of conflation between "sexually harassing a minor" and "generative content". It's important to point out the former conduct seems to be illegal. It's also not a protected expression. Also, what does an evil thing someone does have to do with anyone else (quintessential "guilt by association"). Also, it's a sensationalistic anecdote and it doesn't require this.

There is also a bit of appeal to the stigmatizing and pseudo-scientific concept of "deviance". It's a lazy approach where someone tries to conflate a bunch of random sexual phenomena in a vain attempt to try to demonize it all. It's an attempt to remove nuance (16,17,18,19,20,21) from complex discussions.

"deviance" itself has it's roots in traditional religious morality, where any form of sexuality which differs from the "norm" (which isn't a real thing) is "deviant", "warranting suspicion", or "malevolent". This is why this concept is inherently problematic. It seems to either spread from extreme religious figures, or individuals who spend a lot of time in their company.

"deviance" also lends itself to someone picking out sensationalistic anecdotes (which are otherwise quite irrelevant), simply because these might be more salient to them, or because they think it might serve their argument. Like this though, someone could literally make anything, even drinking water, look bad. In fact, though this is unrelated to this, there was a parody where someone spoke about "water" with spooky and ominous sounding language and asked to ban it (22).

Strangely enough, people seem to feel better, and may even engage in the activities these religious people don't like less, when they accept themselves, a key component of ACT (30,31,32).

Nonetheless, trying to police what adults do in the privacy of their own homes, when they're not bothering anyone else, purely on moral whims is surely something to move past. Who is anyone else to tell someone what they can and cannot do based on an antiquated form of morality?

As for chatbots generating fantastical scenarios, I rebuked someone for virtue signalling and pretending this is "exploitation" (33). It's not. It's someone playing with a chatbot to create some absurd and ridiculous scenario. It's a mundane recreational activity although, it can have therapeutic benefits.

One of the main reasons I rebuked them, is because they played dumb, played stupid, when some company engaged in censorship, and it triggered a not small scandal, and for the very *reason* of therapeutic benefits to a few customers. You can't cover something and completely ignore something so relevant to the subject matter like that.

I'll also deduct points from the person who believes that moving your eyes back and forth is a "miracle cure."

When I say that debunking things takes time and resources, I really do mean that, as can be evidenced by this very post. Frankly, I'm of the opinion these people tend to be bad faith actors, and know damn well they're talking crap. People should stop letting them get away with it.

1 https://qoto.org/@olives/111145583758663294

2 https://qoto.org/@olives/111150762678131671

3 https://qoto.org/@olives/111083302650803082

4 https://qoto.org/@olives/111164674886858482

5 https://qoto.org/@olives/111016637636133512

6 https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-qanon-became-obsessed-with-adrenochrome-an-imaginary-drug-hollywood-is-harvesting-from-kids

7 https://qoto.org/@olives/110388712350966675

8 https://qoto.org/@olives/111179349829778300

9 https://qoto.org/@olives/110616056242888138

10 https://qoto.org/@olives/110740274413433043

11 https://nichegamer.com/attorney-general-united-states-consider-ai-art-ban-child-imagery/

12 https://jere.my/generative-ai-and-children-prioritizing-harm-prevention/

13 https://qoto.org/@olives/111052013744894283

14 https://qoto.org/@olives/111131027174340804

15 https://qoto.org/@olives/111139125304774810

16 https://qoto.org/@olives/111134500696068626

17 https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/the-myths-sex/202110/sex-sleeping-person-the-psychology-somnophilia

18 https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/the-myths-sex/202003/why-are-rape-fantasies-so-common

19 https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/the-myths-sex/201911/our-7-most-common-sexual-fantasies

20 https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/the-myths-of-sex/202212/why-animated-porn-is-so-popular

21 https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/talking-apes/202207/who-likes-violent-porn-new-research-upends-expectations Though, someone pointed out that 90% is cherry-picked from a study from 20 years ago, and it wasn't a representative sample, to start with. Also, extreme religious figures are capable of using / parroting secular sounding arguments.

22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_parody

30 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005789410000043

31 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29702013/

32 https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/women-who-stray/202302/pressure-to-abstain-from-porn-use-may-mean-mental-distress

33 https://qoto.org/@olives/110675159305199891

https://www.vice.com/en/article/88xdez/generative-ai-is-a-disaster-and-companies-dont-seem-to-really-care

Of course, someone could create racist memes via a number of other methods, and they're probably doing this deliberately knowing someone would react to it.

They discuss ethics for a bit, perhaps we should call it morals instead, as they're not demonstrating much here. Then, they seem surprised that large companies have their PR teams say some words to not have their heads bitten off.

The strongest argument here is a copyright argument (I have my own issues with this argument, although I'll hold off on making them in this particular post), however, they fail to demonstrate how these particular instances are problematic, even by this standard.

Is Disney selling their own Mickey holding a knife art? That might be the closest analogue here. These are fairly iconic characters in popular culture, and a parody is not particularly surprising.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/10/eff-urges-second-circuit-affirm-injunction-new-yorks-dangerous-online-hateful I'm not a fan of hate speech, but the last thing you need is a poor argument like this to try to dance around someone's rights. Simply unconstitutional.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/7kx7dd/man-jailed-in-uks-first-treason-conviction-in-40-years-encouraged-by-ai-chatbot

This is poor sensationalistic reporting.

https://qoto.org/@olives/110669983500535507
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/06/ai-chatbot-encouraged-man-who-planned-to-kill-queen-court-told

They leave out the part that it wouldn't have made a difference. This is also old news.

"Shitty how something can be named something that sounds so wonderful, but is utterly evil."

On the contrary, if I see a bill with a name like "prevention" or "safety", and it has something to do with the Internet, I automatically assume it is something really bad.

I suspect though that "Facebook is plotting with the U.K. Government to strip you of your privacy and rights" would not sound much less sinister.

One concern I have with the fediverse are a few "fediverse hosting services" which are popping up (it's not really surprising, services like this exist for all kinds of things, such as blogs).

These create points of control, and from the looks of them, quite a few appear to be bad faith actors who want to wear a little golden crown and control things.

A neutral host is better because they're not really interested in what goes on on the fediverse (the so-called fediverse drama), only whether you pay the bill.

I don't know what the "new version" of KOSA is going to be, however, it is almost certainly not going to fix the fundamental problems with the bill.

Their entire approach, and mindset, with this bill is problematic, so it is likely it will just lead to more obfuscation and pretending the problems with the bill don't exist.

https://euobserver.com/digital/157507 Ylva just won't stop speaking nonsense.

https://qoto.org/@olives/111181593903605992 I wrote here that she is effectively telling on herself by making it out as if the only people worth listening to are Big Tech (and some government pals).

https://qoto.org/@olives/111021131813603000 I've commented on a similar "Big Tech" argument here by a lobbyist / shill with close government ties. A similar one was made in Australia in 2021 by disingenuous officials. Senator Blumenthal seems to have tried to use it in support of the infamous EARN IT Act at one point.

The 2011 directive has it's own issues, and it's not a perfect solution either. I think too much weight is put on it here.

Examining it further, while "WeProtect" appears to have a "company or two", currently featuring Snapchat, this doesn't seem like much more than a token company to make the org appear more diverse than it actually is. The "foundation" is overwhelmingly in the hands of governmental / law enforcement interests, as is it's direction.

Also, these companies aren't exactly ones known for being protective of fundamental rights, such as the freedom of expression and privacy. Snapchat has never used E2EE, and hasn't been known for making difficult policy decisions, or opposing rights violations. If anything, it seems they're more preoccupied with trying to wipe their reputation away of being a "platform used primarily for sexting".

Google / Facebook, if they're still there, might balk at breaking E2EE. However, it's not clear this might have been discussed with them here, and this is not the only way someone's rights might be violated. They also don't have a unique interest in effectively advocating for someone's rights. Even if they did, their presence seems mainly advisory.

#chatcontrol

I don't have the time or resources to debunk bad faith takes one by one, so I will allow my words here to speak for themselves.

A British cop asserting something doesn't magically change this calculus.

I wouldn't be surprised, if they just relied on another jurisdiction to use it for them, and just passed on the "results".

https://www.weprotect.org/wp-content/uploads/WePROTECT-Advisory-Board-Terms-of-Reference.pdf
"by advising the steering committee of the new Global Fund to End Violence Against Children and helping to secure funding for the Fund’s work"
This refers to one of the roles of the Board.

Interesting... It never occurred to me they might be getting funded by these people.